Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Wind on average shuts down several times daily, and if not shut down, operates at diminished capacity for long periods of time. Solar shuts down a minimum of once per day, and too suffers from diminished capacity depending on weather.
A few examples of plants shutting down is not indicative of a systemic problem. If it were a serious problem, we would see nuclear power diminishing rather than growing faster than solar/wind. We would also see lower capacity factors rather than the very steady 80%+ over the past 2 decades.
Wind capacity factor may be improving, but that has more to do with it being very poor to begin with ~30%.
It's silly to imply that what we need to implement today is technology we hope will be developed in the future. We can only implement what is available today while still hoping for improvements in the future. To say that RE storage might be technically feasible and cost effective in the future doesn't give us direction on what to build now.
|
No - an installation across an area almost never totally shuts down. The site is chosen because it has a lot of wind much of the time. And if / when it shuts down - it is PREDICTABLE.
Pilgrim had at least 10 SCRAMs during it's lifetime. And it had to be shut down every 18 months or so for refueling, which takes a number of weeks. It also had to be shut down for regular and emergency repairs.
Nuclear power is NOT growing. In the US, we are decommissioning as many plants as we are building. Nuclear is MUCH much expensive - and decommissioning Pilgrim will cost AT LEAST $1 Billion dollars. IT will have 61 dry casks - that will last only about 100 years. And then they will have to be replaced. Then in 100 years, they will have to be replaced again. And so on, and so on - for possibly THOUSANDS of years.
Nuclear power is simply the stupidest way possibly to boil water.